Worlds of Design: RPG Gods - Benign or Malign?

​

Most RPG settings have some form of godhood. Yet there are some age-old questions that come into play as you create religions.

By Unknown author - Os Deuses Egípcios – IMAGICK, CC BY-SA 4.0, File:Deuses Egipcios.png - Wikimedia Commons​

Gods and “hokey religions” (to quote Han Solo in Star Wars a New Hope) are usually part of fantasy and science fiction role-playing games. From a world-building standpoint, you can approach religion as a form of philosophy, a way to guide one’s life, but a lot more people are into religion than philosophy. Rather than using a religion that resembles a modern day equivalent, let’s start from scratch by asking some fundamental questions:

How Many?​

How many gods are there? In human history, ancient gods often were members of a pantheon, a group of gods. So it is with many RPG campaigns and settings. Gods from these ancient pantheons (Greek and Roman most prominently) were superpowerful and immortal, but otherwise behaved much like humans. Less common was a single god, or a god who has an oppositional aspect (effectively another god) as in Manichaeism or Persia’s Zoroastrian religion (Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman). It has been uncommon to think that only “my” gods exist, and no others. The belief is more likely when there is only one (or two) god(s) in a religion rather than a pantheon. After all, if you can have a bunch of gods, why can't someone else, and those gods compete with one another?

Gender?​

Male vs female? Virtually all the ancient religions were heavily male-oriented, just as societies were heavily male-oriented. Some did have powerful goddesses often related to fertility. But male orientation is not necessary in a fantasy world in which women are often treated much differently than women in the ancient world. There is some notion that in prehistoric times, some religions were heavily female oriented.

Belief?​

Do you believe? Just as in the real world, some characters are going to want nothing to do with gods, while others will devote their lives to them. Some will assume that gods are only bad for humanity, others that gods provide great good for humanity. A GM/World-Builder can influence this strongly through the actual behavior of the gods.

Do You Have a Choice?​

Is there State Sponsorship (forcing everyone to conform)? In the real world, sometimes people are free to choose their religion, other times they are required to conform to the state religion. And you have cases where the laws are devised to encourage someone to convert (as when non-Muslims paid an additional tax in the early centuries of Arab expansion). The Roman Empire changed state sponsorship from their pagan religion to Christianity in the fourth century CE. And so on. The player characters could be religionists resisting state-imposed religion.

Divine Right?​

What about men/women worshiped as gods? There have been many times in human history that rulers justified their right to rule by declaring themselves to be gods. Among these are the Pharaohs, the later Roman emperors, and many medieval kings of Europe. For some it was just an excuse, but others seem to have really believed it.

Manifestations?​

How much do gods manifest in (appear or directly influence) the world? Some ancient gods, e.g. Greek, were thought to constantly meddle with the world. Egyptian gods were less present in the world. If gods do meddle with the world, how do they do it? Provide direction for worshipers (even holy war?)? Give boons to their most prominent worshipers?

Fear or Love?​

Do characters fear their god(s) (and for that matter, rulers), or love him/her/it/them? This depends on the priesthood, or on the behavior of the “actual god(s)”. It also depends on what the ruler thinks is best. It’s easy to make people fear him/her/it when the gods themselves are involved.

The Old Gods?​

What about the “old gods,” the ones who no longer have worshipers? Do they fade away entirely, or do they hang out in the background, so to speak—perhaps providing quest material for players? If they hang out, do they become neutral, or benign, or malign?

What Are They Really?​

"Gods" as Aliens - or Monsters. What are the gods, really? Perhaps they're all part of a big scam?

For an in-depth exploration of different ways to implement religion in your campaign (and answers to some of these questions), see Andrew “Corone” Peregrine’s excellent series of articles on the topic.

Your Turn: What questions did I miss?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That would be very much in line with what I just said. In fact, that distinction would be exactly on point. That 2HD radish spirit is a kami, but not an ō-kami. However, both are worshiped, revered, given homage, and propitiated.

Technically, in 3e D&D, a "god" is anything with Divine Rank of 1 or higher. All beings with Divine Rank 1 or higher in my game world have the same origin - they are either birthed from one of the seven fruit of the World Tree or else they are the descendants of one of those beings. They are phenomenally powerful beings, capable of when acting together especially doing almost anything.

But yes, you are no delving into one of the heresies of my game world. I believe in particular that's Gantroism - the gods are merely powerful supernatural beings and not especially worthy of worship. They should be deferred to only as you would defer to anyone with wisdom and greatness. So you would be, if you were in my game world a Gantroist, and depending on where you vocalized that particular belief, you'd find yourself in jail needing to recant it or face execution.

I take no particular stance on whether Gantro of Corval was correct, but I will say that if your concept of a god is that you must be an all-powerful being capable of creating the heavens and the earth, the gods do fall short of that however mightier than mortals that they can be, and there is a general awareness that the gods were in fact created, and that something probably created the world tree. There are a variety of All-Father/All-Mother cults on my homeworld, but notably, they can't work miracles, can't display divine power, and have no spell wielding priesthood. The same is true of the cults and philosophers that worship The Cascade or The World Tree. So the general consensus is that if such a creator exists, either he's dead, or he's uncaring, or he was never sentient in the first place. The cults of the gods claim divinity in the sense you try to define it of "ō-kami" therefore in an uncontested fashion.

I may have poorly explained myself.

If "divinity," in-setting, means literally actually all things, no exceptions, running from "the literal actual sun, who is coming over to say hi and maybe start an imperial dynasty" to "literally just a radish that can talk," then "divinity" has become so watered-down as a concept as to be pretty much worthless. The word has become devalued in essentially the same way as "awesome," which now just means "a mostly to very positive thing" as opposed to "something which truly inspires awe." It would be better, and more accurate, to come up with a new term (or repurpose an old term) which has "divinity" as a more-specific subset, like spirit, daemon, etc. Hence my comparison between "kami" and "ō-kami": "kami" is a wide-ranging word that can refer to almost any supernatural being from the lowliest plant-spirits to Amaterasu the Queen of Heaven, while "ō-kami" is only for beings like Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukuyomi, etc.; it recognizes that, to the Shinto religion, these are a spectrum and not a sharp distinction, while still having a distinction.

I prefer the word "divinity" to refer to things that legitimately are at the very least "extremely powerful supernatural beings," and (as a rule) prefer them to be things which truly merit awe and reverence. The 2HD radish spirit does not merit awe and, at least from my perspective, doesn't merit any more reverence than seeing, say, a snake or a wolpertinger in your (fantasy) garden. Consequently, it is not "divine," even if it is a (theoretically) benevolent spirit of holy origins. Conversely, a literal actual "god of evil" is perfectly sensible, because being worthy of awe and reverence does not necessitate being good, even if it ends up being in truth "just" a powerful supernatural being and not a proper "god" in the strict sense.

 

[Steampunkette]

So here's another question:

What qualifies as a God?

Surely the Tarrasque is a god of Destruction, right? But wouldn't a Balor be a god to a cult of mortal humans who are all CR 1/4?

Are gods all externalist beings of a specific "Kind" (Monstrosity, Aberration, God, Humanoid, Giant, Dragon, Ooze...) or is godhood instead conferred onto any creature through worship?

Is god a title or a function of one's birth? Can godhood be conferred on someone through apotheosis or is it one-and-done universe already has all it's deities?

In Sins of the Scorpion Age there are many gods. Some of them are little more than powerful Elementals because those are, alone, strong enough and strange enough to be considered Gods by mortals. And worship and sacrifices then offer purpose and power that can be used.

Is the CR 10 "Fallen God" from the Monstrous Menagerie of Level Up/A5e a god? Did it lose its divine nature? Surely a cult of humans would consider that fallen god just as much a god as any other, given its amazing powers...

 

[Bitbrain]

Seeing as how my Dark Sun campaign will be drawing to its conclusion in the next six months and my dad will be taking over next, I might as well begin work on my next campaign by answering the questions raised here.

How Many?​

Five. The same five from the creation of the world until its end. I’m thinking that there may have originally been nine, but the other four were probably killed in the Dawn War.

Gender?​

2 male, 2 female, and 1 intersex.

Belief?

In setting, EVERYONE will know that the gods exist. I have a mechanic in my home games where, if your character cries out to a particular god in a very specific situation, that god WILL aid you.

Do You Have a Choice?​

Is there State Sponsorship (forcing everyone to conform)?

Everyone can worship any and all of the gods they want, although the priests of a particular god revere their patron over all others.

Divine Right?​

What about men/women worshiped as gods?

Nope. There are five gods and five gods only. Claiming divine right is considered the ultimate act of hubris and the gods WILL destroy you on the spot if you try.

Manifestations?​

Not sure yet. The focus is less on creating a fantasy mythology and more building a world for the players to have adventures in.

Fear or Love?​

Do characters fear their god(s) (and for that matter, rulers), or love him/her/it/them? This depends on the priesthood, or on the behavior of the “actual god(s)”. It also depends on what the ruler thinks is best. It’s easy to make people fear him/her/it when the gods themselves are involved.

Both, I suppose.

What about the “old gods,” the ones who no longer have worshipers? Do they fade away entirely, or do they hang out in the background, so to speak—perhaps providing quest material for players? If they hang out, do they become neutral, or benign, or malign?

The four gods who were killed in the Dawn War? I imagine that they did at one time, but after their patron’s death, I suspect that at least one particular priesthood “evolved” from clerics to wizards.

What Are They Really?​

Supernatural spirits that exist outside the laws of reality (supersede them, really).

Missing questions:

1. How many divine origins are there?

As far as mortals are concerned, the gods have always been there and have no origin.

2. Can divinity be proven?

See my answer for Belief. It is proof enough for the mortal inhabitants of this Work-in-Progress setting.

What does each deity represent within the society of its worshippers/greater universe?

Here’s where things get complicated. All of the gods have solar and lunar aspects, so I can’t use phrases like Sun, Moon God to answer this question.

But to oversimplify a bit:

First Deity - god of Reason and Knowledge.

Second Deity - goddess of Passion and Youth.

Third Deity - god of Warfare and Crafting.

Fourth Deity - god of Wind and Storms.

Fifth Deity - goddess of Sorrow and Old Age.

What is each deity's "place" in the greater universe? That is to say, how does each deity relate to/with all the other deities both within its own pantheon (if applicable)?

This is where things get REALLY complicated. How the gods are connected to each other depends on which priesthood you listen to.

For simplicity’s sake, it’s probably best to think of them as archetypes. How they relate to each other and their role within a given story varies, but their distinct “set of powers” remains fixed.

Hey, that was a lot of fun! And it was quite helpful in fleshing out a part of a future home brew setting!

 

[Celebrim]

I may have poorly explained myself.

No, I think you are explaining yourself just fine.

If "divinity," in-setting, means literally actually all things, no exceptions, running from "the literal actual sun, who is coming over to say hi and maybe start an imperial dynasty" to "literally just a radish that can talk," then "divinity" has become so watered-down as a concept as to be pretty much worthless.

I understand the issue very well.

First of all, at some level, it's all your issue. When I described the family matriarch offering simple libation and incense sacrifices at the family shrine, and paying reverence to say Showna (goddess of the Sun), Sesstra (goddess of Labor including the labor of giving birth), her husband's great-great-grandfather who was awarded knighthood in battle and given the property they live on as part of his reward, her grandmother, and the Turnip spirit in her garden that a couple of times she's actually talked to, I didn't at that time say that they were all divine nor really does the worshiper think of all of the things she's praying to and giving homage to as divine. You could ask her, "Which of these are divine?", and she could point to the icons of Showna and Sesstra as distinct form her grandmother and the Turnip spirit. If you asked her about the Turnip spirit, she'd probably be a little confused and think about it for a while before saying, "Well, I guess e's sort of a small god, but e's not really divine if you get me meaning, sir." Or if she had access to something like your Japanese she might say something like, "Well, he's a kami, but he's not an ō-kami". Or if she was a bit learned in the lore of my campaign, she might say, "Little Radugulphey is of the order of lesser spirits, whereas Showna is of the order of the greatest."

And the trouble she'd be having and which I think you are having is, "What does divinity really mean anyway?"

Very much pertinent here might be Greek mythology and the trouble an ancient Greek might have with your question, because the same sort of problems can come up. Suppose near her property was a spring or river known to be incarnated by a nymph. And you asked her or the ancient Greek equivalent, "Is the nymph of the Rashdin Brook, that is Rashdina, a goddess?" The answer to both speakers would have to be, "Yes." In the case of the Greek speaker, there is often literal connected chain of being from one of the Gods down to the nymph daughter or grand-daughter. In the case of the speaker in my campaign world, the fey are actually in some cases older than the gods and both have the same divine parent. So there is no getting away from the divinity of the nymph, but it is also very clearly much less of it there (whatever it is) than there is with a being like Showna, Jord, Lado, Earatay or Airaval.

So you've sort of defined "divinity" by implication as meriting awe and reverence. And I would argue that if you gave that definition to my hypothetical family matriarch, she'd think about it and laugh and say, "Well I guess Radugulphey is divine, but not much." And Rashina the brook spirit is more divine, and Sir Hapsted the Jovial is possibly more divine, and Showna and Sesstra are a whole lot more divine. There is this huge change of being extending from the littlest things in her life all the way up the most unfathomably greater things, but they are all in some sense worthy of awe and reverence.

I would also say that the word divinity is related to the word authority. Raduguphey the turnip spirit has very limited authority. But he does have some authority. He has authority over the turnip crop. In some sense he also is the turnip crop. Make him happy, because of the family's special relationship with the turnip spirit, and they'll get the finest, best, and most prolific crop of turnips in the value. Make him unhappy, and one of their key cash and food crops might get ruined in some fashion. They rely on taking a couple of wagon loads of good turnips to market once a year. Locals may actually be looking forward to it, because everyone knows the Hapsted's grow the best turnips. It's part of the family's reputation. That's worth a little bit of the family's awe and reverence.

I think your worry over this matter comes from the idea that you shouldn't worship anything that isn't "divine" and the only thing that is divine is something that is most divine. That's the idea that you only should give your awe and reverence to say Showna or at least to only things of the same rank because only Showna is divine. But that's not an idea that is widespread within my campaign world. It might be an idea that a few philosophers in the campaign world have, and it's an idea that at some level is common to cultures that fear and persecute Shamans and others that make bargains with spirits that that are not "true gods". But even then, in most cases, as long as our hypothetical matriarch wasn't practicing "witchcraft" as the locals saw it, her reverence for Raduguphey wouldn't be seen as anti-social or odd.

In fact, it's rather quite the opposite. The strangest thing that the Matriarch is doing her is actually directly offering private reverence to Showna. This would been seen as rather cheeky and an act of hubris, for her to petition and offering reverence privately so far up the chain of being as that. In fact, she's probably only excused of it culturally because as the family matriarch she is representing the whole family as a corporate unit and offering to female deities in her role as female head of the family on their implied behalf. It's not generally considered fitting for a private individual of low rank to offer private worship to a deity and especially a greater deity. It's rather much like "breaking the chain of command" and trying to usurp privilege that rightly belongs to a priestess or to the community as a whole. It would be totally appropriate for the whole community to corporately worship Showna lead by one of her priests or priestesses on the summer solstice. It would be on the other hand probably be seen as inappropriate for the family matriarch's youngest daughter to sneak into the family shrine and make an offering or petition directly to Showna. Just who the heck does she think she is anyway?

he 2HD radish spirit does not merit awe and, at least from my perspective, doesn't merit any more reverence than seeing, say, a snake or a wolpertinger in your (fantasy) garden.

I'm trying to explain why this intuition about the world, however right and functional it may be for this the real world, is not right and functional for my campaign world. Hopefully I've explained why the radish spirit is owed some awe and reverence, however slight. And honestly, in my campaign world, a rural farmer that found a snake in his garden would apologize to the snake for having to kill it, and then perform some sort of rite to avoid bad luck after doing so in hopes of avoiding enmity between himself and a possible snake spirit.

 

[jasper]

Are worshippers batteries?
I think it started in 2E but the idea of a gawd gains or loses power due to the number of his worshippers.
Are gawds killable?
Depends on their lore. Norse are going to be done it by the great Frididare sooner or later. In my campaign, even if you kill a gawd, they reform in a year and day. Then they and their people come looking for your.

 

[jgsugden]

I began DMing by using the Norse Pantheon. It was in the Deities and DemiGods, and it gave me a 'relatable' set of Gods. And, frankly, I think it was all I could figure out to do.

When I started my next campaign as a DM, which would be the first adventure in the primary setting I have used for roughly 40 years, I started with a simple design. There was a singular God that created two Gods - who were, in essence, the Positive Energy and Negative Energy Planes. Those two then created the rest of the Gods, which I made up as I needed them (often with high input from players). I ended up with a pantheon of about 30 Gods. However, my Gods were not beings you'd meet. They were more conceptual and less practical. They were the ideas of Love, War and Storms rather than being a manifestation of them. The Angels, Archons, Guardinals, etc... were the ones that PCs met and put physcial form to their Devotion.

Recently, when I moved across the country and rebooted my campaign world for a new group of players, I decided that I needed to make the expansive lore of my campaign more accessible, so I rebuilt the pantheons using Gods from the Dawn War and Greyhawk pantheons. I now regret this decision, as the baggage that came with the knowledge of the Gods created confusion for my players.

If I were to advise a new DM on creating a new world, my advice would be to start small. Make 6 or so Gods. Say there are more, but while they're known to exist, they're not commonly worshipped in the area where the PCs are beginning. Then, add to the pantheon as needed.

 

[Lanefan]

So here's another question:

What qualifies as a God?

Surely the Tarrasque is a god of Destruction, right? But wouldn't a Balor be a god to a cult of mortal humans who are all CR 1/4?

Are gods all externalist beings of a specific "Kind" (Monstrosity, Aberration, God, Humanoid, Giant, Dragon, Ooze...) or is godhood instead conferred onto any creature through worship?

Not, in my opinion, if that creature is mortal enough to die of old age.

Physical immortality and the inability to age unless intentionally desired is IMO divine requirement #1.

So sure, people might worship the Tarrasque - a mortal creature - but that worship isn't going to do it any good.

Is god a title or a function of one's birth? Can godhood be conferred on someone through apotheosis or is it one-and-done universe already has all it's deities?

Part of the conferring-of-godhood process - a.k.a. divine ascension - is to turn a previously-mortal creature into an immortal, as I see it.

 

[Tonguez]

I may have poorly explained myself.

If "divinity," in-setting, means literally actually all things, no exceptions, running from "the literal actual sun, who is coming over to say hi and maybe start an imperial dynasty" to "literally just a radish that can talk," then "divinity" has become so watered-down as a concept as to be pretty much worthless. The word has become devalued in essentially the same way as "awesome," which now just means "a mostly to very positive thing" as opposed to "something which truly inspires awe." It would be better, and more accurate, to come up with a new term (or repurpose an old term) which has "divinity" as a more-specific subset, like spirit, daemon, etc. Hence my comparison between "kami" and "ō-kami": "kami" is a wide-ranging word that can refer to almost any supernatural being from the lowliest plant-spirits to Amaterasu the Queen of Heaven, while "ō-kami" is only for beings like Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukuyomi, etc.; it recognizes that, to the Shinto religion, these are a spectrum and not a sharp distinction, while still having a distinction.

I prefer the word "divinity" to refer to things that legitimately are at the very least "extremely powerful supernatural beings," and (as a rule) prefer them to be things which truly merit awe and reverence. The 2HD radish spirit does not merit awe and, at least from my perspective, doesn't merit any more reverence than seeing, say, a snake or a wolpertinger in your (fantasy) garden. Consequently, it is not "divine," even if it is a (theoretically) benevolent spirit of holy origins. Conversely, a literal actual "god of evil" is perfectly sensible, because being worthy of awe and reverence does not necessitate being good, even if it ends up being in truth "just" a powerful supernatural being and not a proper "god" in the strict sense.

the polynesian term for god/’divinity’ is Atua - the term is mostly connected to gods but can refer to anything from the creator gods to an involuntary muscle spasm. Certainly mountains, rivers, the wind, large rocks or trees could be atua, as could unusual animals (in particular albinos) and reverred ancestors. The term indicates that the there is an influential supernatural presence beyond what can be seen/sensed naturally.
non-gods use other terms certainly, but they are all in the category of Atua.
if you have seen Disneys Moana then to illustrate Maui is referred to as a demi-god, Te Kaa as a demon and the giant eel Maui kills (and later the crab) are referred to as Monsters. In Polynesian languages both Maui and the Eel are referred to as Tupua (spirits) Maui te tupua and Tuna te tupua are the same category (demi-god, demon and monster) and Tupua when invoked are Atua

an even better example is the Ocean itself Tangaroa is Atua of the Ocean, the particular water entity that manifest for Moana is a tupua of Tangaroa

 

[Steampunkette]

Not, in my opinion, if that creature is mortal enough to die of old age.

Physical immortality and the inability to age unless intentionally desired is IMO divine requirement #1.

Ahhhh... but the Tarrasque -can't- be killed. You defeat it, sure, but that just puts it to sleep for a while before it rampages anew! And don't most outsiders return to their plane of origin when killed on the Prime Material Plane and also never age?

Also also: Gods can be killed. Happens all the time in Forgotten Realms, sometimes in Greyhawk, etc.

So sure, people might worship the Tarrasque - a mortal creature - but that worship isn't going to do it any good.

Part of the conferring-of-godhood process - a.k.a. divine ascension - is to turn a previously-mortal creature into an immortal, as I see it.

It's an interesting question. And, ultimately, the answer is going to be based on a given campaign setting.

In SotSA? A Balor would absolutely be treated as a god, and therefore be a god for all intents and purposes. Up to and including killing them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

the polynesian term for god/’divinity’ is Atua - the term is mostly connected to gods but can refer to anything from the creator gods to an involuntary muscle spasm. Certainly mountains, rivers, the wind, large rocks or trees could be atua, as could unusual animals (in particular albinos) and reverred ancestors. The term indicates that the there is an influential supernatural presence beyond what can be seen/sensed naturally.
non-gods use other terms certainly, but they are all in the category of Atua.
if you have seen Disneys Moana then to illustrate Maui is referred to as a demi-god, Te Kaa as a demon and the giant eel Maui kills (and later the crab) are referred to as Monsters. In Polynesian languages both Maui and the Eel are referred to as Tupua (spirits) Maui te tupua and Tuna te tupua are the same category (demi-god, demon and monster) and Tupua when invoked are also atua …

Right. And I would not personally use that term as a synonym for "divine" in the same way that I would not use "ao" as a synonym for azure, my favorite color, even though in the traditional Japanese definition, "ao" would include azure (because it covers colors we Westerners would classify as "blue" as well as colors we would call "green," and azure sits halfway between blue proper and cyan on the color wheel.)

Atua is a hard one to translate so I probably would just keep it as-is and try to give it a clear definition, if I were using something similar (and a belief system like this plausibly exists in my game's setting, as the Ten Thousand Isles of the Sapphire Sea are effectively pseudo-Polynesia. Our Spellslinger is from those islands, so their culture is relevant but I have left it loosely sketched so the player can do interesting things with it. Helps that they lived in Hawaii for many years.)

I guess my issue is, defaulting to the word "divine" or "divinity" for stuff like this strikes me as being like defining the word "wealthy" to mean "anyone who has at least $1." Like...you can do that if you want, it's not logically incoherent or risible. But it feels like taking a useful term and diluting it to be nearly universally applicable, so that now you must invent a new term to serve the function that the old one used to. It's certainly fine to say that there's a spectrum of wealth from "billionaire" to "bus fare," but to insist that being anywhere at all on that spectrum makes one "wealthy" just feels like throwing away the word "wealthy."